World's Largest Tropical Glacier Vanishing

Socguy wrote with a link to a CBC article about the rapidly disappearing Peruvian glacier known as the Quelccaya ice cap. The world's largest tropical glacier was a hot topic this past Thursday at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Glaciologist Lonnie Thompson, and a team of Ohio state scientists, produced the stunning news that Quelccaya and similar formations are melting at a rate of some 60 metres per year. While polar ice caps have commanded attention in the discussion of global warming to date, these tropical caps are crucial to the well-being of ecosystems relying on an influx of mountain stream fresh water.

The real reason it's vanishing

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes great margaritas.

When will the denials stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time it's proven that global warming is happening, we have people who insist that it isn't. We're not even at the point where we're trying to determine whether or not humans are responsible.

Again, we're just talking at the level of whether or not warming is happening, and it clearly is. The evidence is there, as is shown by the melting of glaciers in Peru and Greenland, a decade of warm winters in the northern US and Canada, ice-free passage through the Arctic Ocean, and so forth.

I'm just wondering when those people who are standing so steadfast against reality will admit that they've been wrong.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no global warming. And even if there were, there's no proof humans are causing it. The liberal press is full of wingnuts. And besides, it doesn't matter because we're all going to heaven soon, except for the heathens. And I know for a fact that the earth is flat and has been since god created it 6000 years ago. And SCO will win its lawsuit against IBM. Because god told me so. I can prove Intelligent Design is true, because I am a shining example of it. By the way, I have a new job next week. I will be the SysAdmin at your company.

Re:

[Travoltus]

No, it was 6007 years ago!

I am of the Most Holy Order of the Earth is 6007 Years Old Club and thou must be one of thine swarthy heathens from that Earth is 6993 Years Old sect!

Avast! I'm coming to DEMOCRATIZE thee!

Re:

[edwardpickman]

Well at least you're quitting the job as the President's science adviser.

Re:

[techno-vampire]

I'm just wondering when those people who are standing so steadfast against reality will admit that they've been wrong.

I think the reason is that for most people, global warming means "global warming caused by human activity." That, of course, has yet to be proven. Alas, too many people take it for granted that global warming is caused by, and only by human activity and tend to insult anybody who doesn't agree with them.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[TapeCutter]

"That, of course, has yet to be proven."

Depends on what your definition of "proven" is. The certainty in the attribution of the total of all significant +/- forcings is 90% or higher (ref: 2007 IPCC-SPM, figure SPM-2). The forcings attributed to humans outweighs all other forcings combined. ie: It is 90% certain that humas are responsible for greater than 50% of the total warming effect obserevd.

Note that the IPCC is by it's nature a conservative document, as it should be when 2500 "scientists agree". This means that at very best there is a 10% chance humans are not the cause and as each day passes with no viable alternative explaination combined with data sets that continue to improve, the certainty will increase.

Having said that, it is true the cause is not as certain as the observed warming itself but like all scientific concepts the idea will never be "proven", the best we can hope for is "virtually certain", eg: it is "virtually certain" the sun will rise in the morning but not "absolutely certain".

Re:

[MightyMartian]

Yeah right, there's just an evil cabal of climatologists out to fuck the oil culture. We should consume and shit out every drop of hydrocarbons we've got, because some brilliant guy on Slashdot, who clearly knows more than the legions of scientists who attest that there is global warming that can be correlated to human release of carbon dioxide are a pack of liars. Next you'll be telling us that the Earth is 6000 years old and life didn't evolve. I mean, scientists are just out to fuck us over, right?

Re:

[Ucklak]

It's a known fact that the magnetic poles switch every so often. How do you know that the magnetic shift isn't the cause?

Re:

[Simon80]

Congratulations, you've single-handedly destroyed the entire case for global warming with that argument; utterly amazing!

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Doc Ruby]

Maybe the thousands of climate scientists who say humans are pushing climate change over the edge somehow overlooked that research. No one at NASA ever discusses their research, so it might have gone unnoticed.

You just saved the world from the ignorant climate scientists! Have another cookie.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

"Global Cooling" is a BS red herring that only Greenhouse deniers like you take "seriously".
SARS is still a serious threat of epidemic, after killing thousands where it has spread in China.
Bird flu is an even greater epidemic threat, already starting to kill dozens of humans where it has spread in SE Asia/Pacific, and thousands of birds now starting to be found in Europe.
Mad cow disease has killed people and is still a threat, even though many thousands of cattle have been destroyed to stop it due to regula

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Epithets

[Garrett Fox]

I'll just take issue here with the epithets being used here: "denial addicts" and "Greenhouse deniers." The first dismisses anyone who disagrees with the GW hypothesis as mentally unsound -- that is, they disagree because they're just crazy. The second is apparently a calculated attempt to compare anyone who disagrees with GW to a "Holocaust denier," implying that those who disagree are evil and murderous. Similarly, some writer recently gave the opinion that the "deniers" should be brought before a "climat

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

Y'know, I worked on a couple of real Y2K projects. We replaced a couple of systems that would have cracked up on 1/1/2000, losing the corporations $millions, and in one case possibly interfering with patients receiving healthcare on time. But we fixed it. As did thousands of other geeks and managers working worldwide. Including several here in NYC I knew personally working on essential infrastructure on which many lives depended, and other people we knew nationwide working on essential realtime systems like

Re:

[ArcherB]

But, with these issues, measures where taken to make sure things didn't spread etc, couldn't it have been that many of these measures, you know, WORKED?

Well, that's the Catch-22 we all face. If global warming wipes out man-kind as many have suggested, or at least a large portion of it, many will say, "See, we told you so but you wouldn't listen. Now see what YOU did." Even if all forms of energy are banned, you'll say, "YOU waited too long and now it's too late. YOU should've listened!" Of course, any

Re:

[Simon80]

Yeah, but the parent didn't bother to articulate the argument instead of throwing around vague FUD. Now I have an opportunity to retort: you've given no evidence that our magnetic field is currently unstable.

Re:

[LynnwoodRooster]

Exactly! I mean, my conjecture of the magnetic field being unstable is based upon models and some local phenomena, and drifting magnetic north fields. But we know it's flipped and been unstable in the past, so it must be now, because the models say so and we have localized data...

Kind of like the "Man's driving climate change" argument, eh?

Re:

[Simon80]

No, not really. I don't recall this global warming incident happening to previous human civilizations.. oh wait, that's right, we're the first. And so far you haven't actually presented models as an argument to suggest that the earth's magnetic field should be currently unstable, so the "Man is driving climate change" argument probably has you there. Call me a hypocrite, but I'm too lazy to gather evidence.

Re:

[Simon80]

It looks like neither of those events can be called global warming in any sense, because as one hemisphere of the world warmed or cooled, the opposite hemisphere experienced a change in the opposite direction. If you're going to try to argue this seriously, get your facts straight, otherwise we're both wasting our time. This is why I prefer not to do research - I'm supposed to be studying, and it's not worth it to reinvent the wheel. Somewhere, someone is building their career off of an argument for or a

Re:

[Simon80]

I find their conclusions to be very compelling. It seems this case is closed, and we should all celebrate by buying lots of oil, followed by some time at Monday mass, since it has been clearly established, through scientific experimentation and deduction, that the earth was created by a higher power.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Capsaicin]

This recent article linking cosmic rays and global warming is the start.

This has already been debunked [realclimate.org] I'm afraid.

Re:

[GaryPatterson]

It's also a well-known fact that the death rate of polar bears has increased.

Should we posit that more polar bears equals a cooler planet? That polar bears are critical to the regulation of temperature around the globe?

You need to show causation, not just correlation. And you didn't show correlation anyway. How often to the poles move about? Does that match the cycle of previous warming/cooling periods? Is there any link whatsoever?

Re:

[dosquatch]

who clearly knows more than the legions of scientists who attest that there is global warming that can be correlated to human release of carbon dioxide are a pack of liars.

Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling [wikipedia.org]?

Humans most certainly have an impact on the environment. We are part of it, there is no way we cannot. I just question the current scientific fervor because, quite frankly, we as a species have this tendency to go through fits of hysterics that aren't always warranted.

Should we be kinder to our environment? Absolutely. Do I believe that the world is going to come

Re:When will the denials stop?

[fucksl4shd0t]

Heh, I'll bite.

My main issue with this global warming thing isn't the scientific fervor, it's the political ball it's become. You see, the scientific fervor, imo, derives from the way scientists are generally treated by politicians and businessmen. If you're a scientist, and your research indicates someone will or should stop making money, or that potentially unpopular laws should be passed, you're hated by the powers that be. So I suspect something of a martyr syndrome going through the scientific community over this, and am willing to disregard hysterics from the scientific community for that reason.

However, they are smart people who know what they're talking about. They could be wrong, but I don't really see how any of the recommended measures, if taken incrementally to make the money-grubbing politicians and blood-sucking lawyers happy, will be bad for us on the whole. We get more efficient technology out of the deal, significant technological advances, and serious improvements in living conditions in exchange for what? Recognizing we might be capable of trashing our planet? Sounds good to me!

But what really irks me is the way politicians are playing the science card and trying to manipulate the scientific community. The damage we might suffer on the whole as a result of the fight is imo far greater than the damage we might cause to ourselves via global warming.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Capsaicin]

Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling?

Different ones. Also there were a handful of climatologists calling cooling (judging by the infamous Newsweek article, I still have not been shown a peer-reviewd paper arguing cooling), almost the entire profession agree that we are facing a warming trend, plus that it is man-made.

See this is how it works. In the 70s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream of the profession) argued for global cooling. In the 90s a handful of climatologists (contra the mainstream) argued that Global Warming was not occuring. In both these instances the mainstream of the profession was proved correct.

Re:

[anagama]

Well, there is some ice core evidence that the current rapid rate of overall increases is unusual. Whether humans are the total cause or not is probably debatable, but in some ways irrelevant. Let's try an analogy:

• Imagine it is high summer with a temp approaching 85 degrees F.
• You are inside your house with the heat on, windows closed.
• You are sweating, uncomfortable, and wish it would be cooler

If you're a pickup truck republican wingnut, you go turn on your AC to counter the heat and ignore the fact y

Re:

[ArcherB]

* Imagine it is high summer with a temp approaching 85 degrees F.
* You are inside your house with the heat on, windows closed.
* You are sweating, uncomfortable, and wish it would be cooler

If you're a pickup truck republican wingnut, you go turn on your AC to counter the heat and ignore the fact you are partly at fault for the uncomfortable environment in your house.

So let me get this straight... If it's hot out... and you have the heater on... i

Re:When will the denials stop?

[anagama]

Would a Democrat Tree Hugger leave the heat turned on and notice that he's responsible for it being hot?

Yes. That was the point of the analogy -- the "tree hugger" upon recognizing his complicity in being uncomfortable, takes reasonable steps to minimize that discomfort. And of course, the warming deniers are largely from the right wing. If you feel it makes the right wing look foolish, well, that was the point. If you don't want to look like clowns, take off the squeeky noses.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[DeadChobi]

Hey, I'm a skeptic too, but there is indeed evidence that at least some of the warming is human-caused. Of course, it's also possible that the earth has very slightly shifted its orbit too, and that what humans are doing is simply forcing some oscillation that takes place over many thousands of years. I mean forcing as in forced harmonic oscillation.

That said, unless we can somehow damp the oscillation we're going to be very warm indeed if the trend continues.

Also, there was another post earlier characterizing all global warming skeptics as backward-thinking fundamentalist christians who believe in intelligent design. That kind of characterization contributes nothing to the discussion, It just sets up a straw man for everyone else to viciously attack. It's not funny, it's not insightful, and it's not intelligent. I'm sure if you look through my history of posts I've said stupid stuff like that too. However, it's been my experience that if you want to convince anyone of anything you can't go around calling them a moron or you're going to get the door slammed in your face.

Re:

[drix]

Also, there was another post earlier characterizing all global warming skeptics as backward-thinking fundamentalist christians who believe in intelligent design.

I agree, that's going way too far.

Most of them believe in creationism.

Re:When will the denials stop?

[Planesdragon]

There is still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the temperature changes we're seeing nowadays aren't [just] part of some long term cyclical effect that we haven't yet been able to detect,

Wrong. We have the (rapidly shrinking) antarctic ice, whose layers of melt-and-freeze give us a record stretching back some 65,000 years. In all that time -- eight times longer than since the dawn of civilization -- we can observe correlating CO2 and temperature levels. In all of those cycles, not ONCE has the CO2 gotten to the point where it is now.

If it's a "long-term" effect, it's long-term in a species-ending geological sense. It may be "just natural", but if so it'll still end us if we don't do something to offset and moderate it.

And, even if it's just a natural cycle, embracing the scientific status quo is a means for American Profit. Or do you really think that somehow all of the American genius vanished after WWII? A new paradigm that rewards innovation will mean American profits. Maybe different Americans, maybe the same Americans -- but unless you own a large GM portfolio, you really don't care.

Re:

[ArcherB]

Wrong. We have the (rapidly shrinking) antarctic ice, whose layers of melt-and-freeze give us a record stretching back some 65,000 years. In all that time -- eight times longer than since the dawn of civilization -- we can observe correlating CO2 and temperature levels. In all of those cycles, not ONCE has the CO2 gotten to the point where it is now.

So you are saying that CO2 correlates with temperature... the more CO2, the hotter... and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before... has it not ONC

Re:

[Coryoth]

You know 65,000 years is nothing on a planetary scale.

Two things should be mentioned here. The first is that the OP missed a zero. It is 650,000 years [wikipedia.org]. Secondly, while that may be very small in comparison to the earth's history of some 6.5 billion years, it is quite a lot in comparison to the history of modern humans (only around 200,000 years). Sure things have been different in the past, but then the world was a dramatically different place in the past. What we should concern ourselves with is the environ

Re:

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter if it's a long-term cycle or a short-term cycle. What matters is that it's happening, and it's really starting to affect us. For example, most people these days don't have more than a week or so worth of food stored up. So let's suppose the warming is just a short-term trend, lasting only a year. Even just one year of poor crop yields will send food prices through the roof. And as we saw in New Orleans so recently, even American civilization isn't as strong as we may think. The result wil

Re:

[optimusNauta]

I cannot believe that people would mark something like this as 'informative.' First of all, this view is only partially relevant when talking about America and perhaps Western Europe. If you look at other nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, hunger is a problem now, even without drastic climate change, because there isn't enough food produced for all the people there. Imagine if climate change caused the desert of the Sahara to shift south, or if longer rainy seasons destroyed fragile ecosystems,

Where does this say agriculture?

[mdsolar]

I can see the point that the plants adapted to the Cretaceous might have been slightly more efficient at photosysnthesis though I doubt that one can easily implicate greater availability of CO2 since the increased growing season would have a greater effect. Plants adapted to the Holocene may do much worse in the face of a rapid increase in CO2 for while productivity may go up, the range of pests can also increase with the increase in temperature subjecting large tracks of forests to die off. http://www.bl [blackwell-synergy.com]

Re:

[anagama]

I don't mind you nutballs driving insanely big trucks anymore. You're paying me some killer dividends. I make 2x more in dividends from my fossil fuel stocks than I spend on energy (fuel and electricity combined). Keep driving, I'll keep collecting. ;-)

Re:

[Metasquares]

They drive and you collect while the whole world goes to pot.

Yep, that pretty much summarizes the situation.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

I saw a documentary about people eating your family alive to survive after a climate disaster made Bush's Katrina look like Monica Lewinsky.

Re:

[A beautiful mind]

I can't decide whether your post is a good example of subtle sarcasm or whether you're really are serious. I'm kinda hoping it's sarcasm.

Second Life

[realmolo]

Second Life, the enormously popular Internet "virtual reality" world with over 60 zillion users, has PLENTY of tropical glaciers available. You can even build your own glacier, and earn REAL money selling the land to other Second Life players!

Also, it's great if you are a furry.

Peru is not the only one in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

A number of himalaya glaciers are disappearing fast. Once they do, India and Western/Central China are in great danger. As it is, Gorges dam (and the 2 new hydroelectrics being planed) is mostly fed by Glaciers that may disappear in less than 50 years. Worse, this water is used for some of the most fertile land in both countries. That would leave both with far less capability to feed themselves. China will almost certainly pull a W approach and pick a fight with neighboring country with plenty of water. In general, there is only 1 country; Russia.

Re:

[phoenix.bam!]

I've always wondered about this.
If the glaciers are receding is it because of lower amounts of precipitation or is it from rain instead of snow?

If it's less precipitation, then obviously there will be a water shortage, but so far I've seen no mention of less precipitation. If the same amount of water falls from the sky each year then the dam will simply have a steady supply of water instead of a shortage in winter and a rush in the spring.

You're missing something

[knorthern knight]

Current/Past situation...
- snow falls and accumulates into snowpack over the winter
- snowpack melts during spring and summer, supplying water for irrigation during the growing season
- snowpack doesn't melt completely during summer. This means there's a reserve that can handle a couple of dry years

Future situation
- rain falls during the winter and runs off to the sea
- no water during the summer
- a couple of dry winters makes things even worse

Do you have any idea how huge a dam you'd need to hold water equivalant to the snow cover on a mountain range?

New Atlantis

[Doc Ruby]

How many feet of sea level rise does the Himalayan glacial melt represent? We see stats about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (5m) and Greenland (7m), but what about the Himalays? And what about the contribution from all the Andean glaciers, not just Peru's? Canada's got lots of land ice...

Even the NASA data for flood elevations [firetree.net] goes up to only 14m. We've got a lot more ice than that.

Global Warming

[Citizen of Earth]

On the subject of Global Warming, allow me to be the first Canadian to say YES, YES, AWESOME, FUCK YEAH!

Re:

[MarkRose]

But shit! How will we keep the beer cold?

Re:

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Oh, that giant snowstorm starting to form over the Arctic should get your beer nice and frozen...

Re:

[ip_freely_2000]

Amen, brother.

Most of the company has been way below normal since mid-January.

Global Warming: Bring it on.

Re:Global Warming

[Kenshin]

Question: Do you really want the Americans moving HERE when it gets too hot?

As long as they think it's snowing all year round here, we're mostly safe from them.

Re:

[Ubergrendle]

A few comments...

Something like 80% of Canada's population lives within 100km of the border with the US. We're very happy with our neighbours thankyouverymuch. The elect idiot presidents sometimes, but they don't get to see our parliament up close and personal... thank goodness.

Also, given that most of the northern US states are several hundred kilometers north of Ontario's Golden Horseshoe (where 1/3 of Canada's population lives, mainly around Toronto), they have lots of cold places to visit themselv

Re:

[Climate Shill]

On the subject of Global Warming, allow me to be the first Canadian to say YES, YES, AWESOME, FUCK YEAH!

Say, that's some nice climate you have there buddy ! And only a few hours tank drive away !

Anonymous cowards

[alshithead]

Why is it that only anonymous cowards tend to disclaim global warming? ALL of the most recent observations of really important glaciers (read as heavily utilized) tend to point to the fact that most of them are disappearing at a scary rate. If you rely on glacier melt for fresh water, you are most probably fucked...next year, 5 years, 25 years down the road, it doesn't matter. The time frame is debatable. The end result isn't.

How can any educated person deny that we have seriously affected our world ecosystem? Species are going extinct everywhere, local climates are fluctuating wildly, and I sure as hell won't be buying any land that is close to our current sea level.

We don't understand the world or even local climate science in enough depth. Our actions seem to be causing changes that are mostly unpredictable. Just because we can't categorically prove it doesn't mean that we aren't the cause. The predictions I see as most reasonable are actually some of the worst case scenarios.

Re:

[Vermifax]

"How can any educated person deny that we have seriously affected our world ecosystem? "

Because the majority agree that it is getting warmer, not that we did/are doing it.

also

[Vermifax]

"Our actions seem to be causing changes that are mostly unpredictable."

Read what you just typed.

Attitudes Towards Dissent

[Shihar]

For the same reason why people post as AC whenever it is on a topic where there is a strong majority opinion opposing them; they know that they are likely to get modded into hell and have their precious karma torn apart.

One thing that does and always has moderate me is that when the group think really gets going it can result in comments that are certainly insightful/informative/whatever getting modded down because they are going against the consensus of the group. The point of the moderation system is not to sit around jerking each other off about how much you agree. The point of discussion is to explore different points of view, debate, pontificate, and in general act like intellectuals who are not afraid of dissidents from the group.

I personally think that glaciers melting is a bad thing and that humans probably can take a hunk of the blame for it. That said, it pisses me off when I see completely reasonable arguments to the opposite getting modded down as flames, trolls, or (the slightly more reasonable) overrated. At the same time, we get a dozen one line "See!!!! When will people realize global warming is real!!!!" post modded up like that actually brings something intelligent to the conversation.

This isn't a battle to mod the other sides opinion into oblivion. The point is to actually converse. People are posting as AC because the environment of conversation is completely broken when it comes to this topic. Utter crap that agrees with the majority opinion is getting modded up, and well thought out arguments against the majority opinion are getting slammed down. People shouldn't have to post AC to post a dissenting opinion.

Re:

[PieSquared]

I certainly believe that global warming is happening. I believe that global warming will be catastrophic. I believe that humans have influenced global warming, increasing its magnitude. I just don't believe that the difference between the world with humans and the world if humans never evolved (200 years from now) is really that different.

Yes, there are examples like this article of increased temperature. Why the first week of January it was 60 outside here, setting record highs by huge amounts! Of cou

A bit odd

[93 Escort Wagon]

This is odd on a couple counts. First, Lonnie Thompson has undoubtedly been aware for a couple decades that Quelccaya has been melting away (I used to work in a different university's ice core lab, and we used to collaborate with Lonnie). Second, based on both climate models and historical records I'm pretty sure that what we refer to as "global warming" shouldn't have a huge impact on tropical glaciers. During both glacial and interglacial periods the significant temperature changes were in subtropical and especially arctic areas - tropical areas saw very little change. What this means is: even if we'd never dumped tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, Quelccaya would still likely be melting away right now.

This isn't meant as an argument in the debate over human-caused global warming; it's just an argument that Quelccaya is probably not good supporting evidence for either side.

Re:

[dbIII]

It's another one to add to all of the rest, and a bit more dramatic than most although I think the glacier on Mt Kenya that took some effort climbing in the 1950s has actually gone by now.

Re:A bit odd

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I'm pretty sure that what we refer to as "global warming" shouldn't have a huge impact on tropical glaciers. During both glacial and interglacial periods the significant temperature changes were in subtropical and especially arctic areas - tropical areas saw very little change.

You haven't thought that through.

Even tho' tropical areas are likely to see a smaller temperature difference than a sub tropical or artic, they're also much more sensitive to said change. According to Real Climate's Tropical Glacier Retreat Page [realclimate.org]:

Generally speaking, lower glaciers which extend below the elevation where above-freezing air temperatures occur, are more sensitive to temperature. [Kaser and Osmaston 2002] calculate that such tropical glaciers are even more temperature-sensitive than midlatitude glaciers. A warming of 1 degree C is sufficient to raise the equilibrium line (below which net ablation occurs) by fully 300 meters. As we've already seen, warming is by no means unimportant to the 20th century retreat of the Lewis glacier (Mt. Kenya) in E. Africa. In other cases, the role of warming is yet more clear.

Climate change flamewar checklist

[BlackSabbath]

Let's see:

1. climate change skeptic in self-righteous post promotes solar-cycle theory.
2. climate change believer rapidly ripostes regarding selective fact picking.
3. comments about big-oil funded research
4. "AAAARGH - who cares what's causing it - let's fix it NOW!" i.e. unreasonable PANIC
5. comments arguing for caution, measured response i.e. unreasonable calm
6. some idiot bringing Microsoft in to this.
7. inevitable (yet unamusing) "...PROFIT!" jokes
8. inevitable (yet much deserved) Bush/US bashing.
9. var

Does it even matter if the globe is warming?

[ddoctor]

The world seems to be of the opinion that the existence of global warming proves we are fucking up this planet... and it's non-existence would prove that we're fine... as if global warming is the ONLY environmental issue there is, and if we can solve that, we're fine. Jeebus!

What about deforestation? Air quality? Mass extinctions? Loss of biodiversity? Water availability and quality? Overpopulation? Non-renewable resource shortages? Nuclear waste? Landfill?

Anyone tasted the air in peak hour traffic in a major city? Isn't that enough to prompt some action?

We don't have to prove the earth is warming for us to realise the damage we are doing! It's a RED HERRING! It's just one issue. What if we solve global warming... then what? Will our attitudes have changed? Will we still be pumping sewage in the ocean, burning coal and cutting down all the trees?

Global Warming isn't a problem unto itself... its a symptom of our abuse of this planet. It's only a poster-boy issue. Both sides need to stop debating - it doesn't matter whether global warming is happening or not. It's OBVIOUS the damage we're doing... that should be enough to prompt us to fix it.

Re:

[mike2R]

But you miss the BIG PICTURE - MAN is evil, and more importantly CAPITALISM is unnatural and the USS are the Great Satan!

sigh.. do you always form your judgements on an idea based on the opinions of it's nuttiest supporters. Yes there are vocal people who believe pretty much what you say - given that you don't respect their opinions (who does?) why do you let them influence your thinking on this issue?

It's like saying open source is made by evil anarchists because some idiot teenager DOSed SCO's website.

Just a natural phenomenon

[Ace905]

I'm so sick of all the left-wing zealots going crazy over news like this.

Global Warming is a simple, natural phenomenon whereby the planet destroys a large percentage of it's population - including humanity, and then starts over again.

Nothing to worry about.

---
Too large a percentage? [douginadress.com]

Re:

[nebosuke]

Glaciers help to trap more water during the winter than would otherwise remain in the area, and regulate its dispersal.

To imagine the first part of the above, imagine, for a moment, a bank account. Initialy you are just skimming off the interest on the principal. At some point, however, you start dipping into the principal itself. While a portion of the principal remains, you will be receiving more cash than you were while you were just drawing on the interest. When it runs out, however, you no longer

Re:

[sumdumass]

couldn't they build a dam and/or create a lake to regulate the amount of water comming down?

Re:NOT a problem for the water supply

[callmetheraven]

Yes, the total amount of runoff yearly will be the same, but if the glacier disappears, and there is no winter snow accumulation, there will be reduced runoff during warm dry months of summer, just like here in Montana. Winter snowpack accumulation/meltoff is crucial for year-round water supply in some climates.

Re:

[Vermifax]

Of course if the temp rises, more water will evaporate into the atmosphere as well.

Re:

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Winter snowpack stores water for summer. If there isn't a deep freeze for the water, it comes out as devastating spring floods. Imagine the effect of tearing down a dam and draining the reservoir: same thing if you eliminate a frozen reservoir.

Re:

[Riktov]

...it comes from snow and rainfall in that area, which presumably will continue as before.

And that's one huge and unsupported presumption. The cause of the glaciers' melting is change in local climate. How do we know that the clouds will continue to dump precipitation, or that the rivers will continue to evaporate, in the same way, if the temperature is different?

Re:Emerging from an ice age will have that effect

[marimbaman]

Nice work selectively citing the minority of papers that support your position. Most climate scientists not funded by Big Oil will tell you that we are indeed altering the balance of the Earth.

Oh and, even if you believe global warming is a natural phenomenon, you should still be worried. After all, whatever wiped out the dinosaurs was also a natural phenomenon.

http://xkcd.com/c164.html [xkcd.com]

Re:

[night_flyer]

so... what is causing MARS to warm up?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html [space.com]

or cliamte change on Jupiter?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05 -04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA [usatoday.com]

Re:

[QuoteMstr]

Don't you fucking see that it DOESN'T MATTER what's causing the climate change? The reality is now indisputable, and must be dealt with if we're to avoid massive human suffering regardless of whether the cause is natural or man-made. There are options that must be considered, and this pointless bickering is just getting in the way.

Re:

[sumdumass]

What are these options and how are we sure that these options won't make things worse if this is juat a trend that corrects itself?

Re:

[dosquatch]

Don't you fucking see that it DOESN'T MATTER what's causing the climate change? The reality is now indisputable, and must be dealt with if we're to avoid massive human suffering regardless of whether the cause is natural or man-made. There are options that must be considered, and this pointless bickering is just getting in the way.

Riiiiight... we're going to selectively engineer a global climate when we can't even selectively control other undesirable local weather phenomenon like hurricanes and tornadoes. Hell, we can't even accurately predict them.

Climate is historically self-correcting. I have no reason to believe it is not still so. Why should I believe the 100-year forecast when next week's is typically wildly off the mark?

Re:

[GaryPatterson]

Nice rebuttal of the science. Boy, those 95% of scientists who believe the evidence supporting global climate change makes the opposite case to the two papers you linked to will feel silly now.

Come back when you've got scientific consensus on your side.

Until then, maybe we can start planning how to deal with this. Even if you disagree with the cause, the fact remains that we have to be concerned about the result.

Re:

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

We only have about 25 years of direct measurement of solar intensity from outside the atmosphere. Indirect reconstructions have not converged yet. That's why there's such a range of uncertainty about the contribution of solar changes to global temperature increases.

The whole body of research is summarized in the latest IPCC report. The numbers are:
"The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W/m**-2"
and
"Changes in solar irradiance s

Re:

[sumdumass]

But as usual you can simplify the whole question by looking at one key point. Why are nights getting warmer? Solar input affects daytime temperatures. The predicted effect of longwave absorption is that nights won't cool off as quickly. The observation is the same.

The single most influential green house gass can explain the night not cooling off as rapidly as you would expect. And this gas is called water vapor. Currently water vapor is primarily considered a feedback instead or a forcing but in this spec

Re:

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Human activity is responsible for 50% of CO2, the other 50% is volcanic sources.

Whoever told you this is not your friend.

Annual CO2 from volcanic activity, 130 to 230 teragrams(*). Annual CO2 from humans burning things, and not counting deforestation: 20,000 teragrams.

(*)Gerlach, T.M., 1992, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4, 1991, pp. 249, and 254-255

Re:

[the_womble]

Human activity is responsible for 50% of CO2, the other 50% is volcanic sources.

Everyone knows this one already, right ? But just in case.

According to the page you linked to:

Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea

Re:

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

The report implies that the tropical glaciers are all receding. And there are probably fewer of them, so it ought to be easier to tell. But it could be wrong.
Of course, I hear that there's a glacier advancing in New Zealand. Maybe it's tropical.
If all the tropical glaciers are receding, then that means the tropics are getting warmer, regardless of whether the poles are warming or prepping for a "Day After Tomorrow" snowstorm.

Re:What isn't being said?

[MarkRose]

Wikipedia actually has an article full of data regarding exactly that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_s ince_1850 [wikipedia.org] . If you don't believe what's written in the article, check out the references. The global conclusions are quite clear.

Re:

[LarsWestergren]

So if they've been retreating since 1850, how are cars to blame?

Climate has always gone through fluctuations, what is frightening now is the how much bigger the change is, and how quickly it happens. I don't know how many times we have to explain this.

The world has been warming way longer than cars have been around.

Greenhouse gas emissions have been around longer than cars, it has been inceasing steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm tired of all this bullshit about our generation killing

Re:

[GaryPatterson]

You posit that some glaciers are advancing, but this is unreported.

Why do you suspect this? How do you know? Is it likely that there aren't any glaciers advancing?

I've never heard anything to back up your position, so it seems like you're trying to sow some doubt here without any evidence behind you. I'm happy to debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.

Re:

[GaryPatterson]

Hey - it's the responsibility of the original poster to put some evidence if they make a claim. Yes, I can't be bothered doing their part for them.

Re:

[GaryPatterson]

I wish I had checked that site before posting.

I've been to Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier, and it's not growing. It does advance at about 2m per day (it's the world's fastest glacier) but massive chunks are falling off all the time. It's a spectacular show. The actual glacier is relatively constant in size - as more ice comes in, more ice falls off.

Given that I have first-hand knowledge of one glaring flaw on that site, I have to question the rest of the data.

Re:

[hxnwix]

"But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding. That isn't being reported." : "There are good things happening in Iraq; they just aren't being reported." :: bullshit : bullshit

Hold on...

[Descalzo]

Are you saying that there are NOT any good things happening in Iraq?

Or are you saying that these good things are actually being reported?

Re:What isn't being said?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

But there are also glaciers nearby that are advancing instead of receding.

Can you back up that statement with a link, or did you just pull some highly speculative piece of bullshit out of your ass?

So the question to ask is: How many tropical glaciers are advancing or staying the same instead of receding? The report does not say, so it is impossible to draw any global conclusions.

Fucking retarded. TFA talked about other glaciers & a few seconds research would have lead you to Tropical Glacier Retreat [realclimate.org] analysis.

Throughout the Tropics, glaciers are in retreat. Well-documented examples include Quelccaya [Thompson, et al. 1993], Huascaran [Byers, 2000; Kaser and Osmaston,2002], Zongo and Chacaltaya [Francou,et al 2003; Wagnon et al. 1999] in S. America; and the Lewis, Rwenzori and Kilimanjaro (more properly, Kibo) glaciers in East Africa [Hastenrath, 1984; Kaser and Osmaston, 2002]. There have been indications of widespread retreat of Himalayan glaciers, including Dasuopu in the subtropics, but a quantitative understanding of this region must await peer-reviewed analysis of the recently completed 46000-glacier Chinese Glacier Inventory.

In short, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Re:

[dbIII]

So the question to ask is: How many tropical glaciers are advancing or staying the same instead of receding?

None of them and people have been noticing this for decades.

I'm a little sick of the foothold creationists have got on this issue which has left the USA opposing even printing anything on this - it is well documented that the climate is changing.

Re:

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

If it's not being reported, why was it so easy for me to find that the Hubbard glacier is expanding [usgs.gov]?

The valid point you make is that an article about one glacier does not help you determine global climate. What does is the fact that most of them are retreating.

Re:

[Riktov]

So if some glaciers like this one, which have been essentially unchanged in size for thousands of years, are shrinking to the point of disappearing within five years, while others are growing, (even at the same rate, which is highly doubtful), they somehow "balance out" and thus there's no global trend to be seen or to worry about?

It's like these folks who are saying "The Eastern seaboard has had its coldest winter or record! Global warming is bunk!" What matters is not so much whether it's heating or cooli

Re:

[BluBrick]

Seeing as the plane crash landed, there was probably a fire or two after impact. That would have been sufficient to melt a pretty deep puddle in the glacier. The plane then sinks into the puddle, the sub-arctic temperatures in Greenland re-freeze the water in short order and suddenly the plane is more deeply embedded in the ice than would be expected.

Now I'm not saying that's what did happen, but it's feasible. Perhaps glacial growth is not so underestimated. On the other hand perhaps it is anyway.

Glacier Girl

[Descalzo]

No fires. The flight crews waited in the B-17 until they were rescued. The only fires documented were the ones they made themselves from oxygen tanks.

Re:

[hxnwix]

Indeed, and there's also nuclear war and pandemics to worry about. What was your point?

Re:

[hxnwix]

No worries, your kids will have beach front property! And the displaced residents of New Jersey to share it with!

Re:

[datafr0g]

So what? Are you implying that if it's not man made then it's not a problem for us or our responsibility to resolve?

That'd make a fun argument: Citizens vs. Planet Earth.

Citizens: "Planet Earth, you fix the problem, we shouldn't have to as we have evidence to prove that it's not our fault - you're just not playing fair!"
Planet: "Ummmmmmmmmmmm.... naah, fuck ya."

KABOOM

Regardless of all the possibilities of who/what, etc causes climate change, it's all of us who are going to be screwed unless som

Re:

[drix]

Oh waah. In light of the topic at hand, let me be the first to say cry me a fucking (glacial) river. If using a different kind of lightbulb, taking public transit, driving a more fuel efficient car (when necessary), buying energy efficient appliances &c &c &c comprises the sum total of your "free individual life," you are the most pathetic individual I have ever come across. Or is this just some sort of pent-up spew from back when the gub'ment told you you can't have any more AK-47s to hunt deer

Re:Humans

[Alioth]

Actually, it's not the planet we should worry about. If we annihilated ourselves tomorrow in a nuclear war, the planet would shrug it off. If we burned every ounce of oil in two weeks, the planet would shrug it off. In 500 million years time, the Earth would still be there, just without humans.

We aren't trying to protect the planet - we are trying to protect ourselves. Concern about global warming is nothing to do with saving the planet, it has everything to do with saving ourselves.

If our technological and industrial society is to survive, we have to address these issues and make sure we still have a relatively cheap energy source that doesn't (long term) threaten the existence of that society. If, through hubris, we allow this society to collapse, there cannot be another industrial revolution for a few hundred million years - because all of the easy-to-get-at resources have been used up: the low hanging fruit of easy to get coal and oil has gone - you now need a technologically advanced society to actually exploit these. We have one chance at surviving long term, otherwise humanity will be doomed to a Middle Ages style existence until it finally dies out.

The planet on the other hand doesn't need saving. The sun has another 5 billion years of main sequence, and the Earth will shrug anything off. However, our society cannot do the same. _All_ concern at doing things to not pollute the environment is not for the purpose of 'saving the planet', it's for the purpose of 'saving human civilization'!